In the Instant Case of Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate Application for bail has been made in a case where the applicant has been detained since June 22, 2022, and is accused of violating Sections 13(2) and 120-B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860. A well-known food firm by the name of Shakti Bhog Foods Limited produced and offered a variety of goods under the Shakti Bhog brand. The directors and guarantors of the firm, Mr Kewal Krishan Kumar, Mr Siddharth Kumar, and Ms Sunanda Kumar, operated it. The applicant was one of the 250 regular workers of SBFL. The applicant is accused of participating in money laundering by allegedly helping to inflate inventories fraudulently in the company’s accounting records, which raised borrowings. The inquiry established that the Managing Directors, Directors, and Guarantors of SBFL had engaged in bank fraud. The fraudulent actions caused consortium member banks to lose INR 3269.42 crore. The applicant was said to have benefited from SBFL’s criminal proceeds totalling INR 1,00,00,000 for nine years, from 2008 to 2017. The applicant was also a stakeholder and director of several SBFL group companies, which gave SBFL a platform to rotate and redirect loan monies and commit a money-laundering offence in contravention of PMLA 2002 Section 3.
Analysis of Court Order
Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge Bench denied the applicant’s request for bail and said that the applicant’s involvement in the financial transactions in which direct loan money was diverted to SBFL’s sister companies where the applicant is either a shareholder or director is demonstrated.
The applicant’s position may be determined through several declarations, emails, and bills, the court ruled. Investigations turned up emails from fictitious companies that supplied SBFL with phoney invoices, including Lachhu Ram Aggarwal & Co, Annapurna Trading Company, Ganesha Overseas, Sarthak Trading Company, and Mayank Enterprises. The applicant cannot claim ignorance of these transactions because they include the procurement of materials for SBFL, as Vijay Malhotra confirmed the accompanying false invoices. The applicant’s role in managing SBFL’s activities and commercial dealings he was either the major originator or recipient made it insufficient to determine that the applicant is not guilty of money laundering, the court added. The applicant’s answers to numerous SBFL workers also seem to indicate that he is actively involved with criminal proceeds.
The court denied the request for bail, ruling that there was enough evidence to convict the applicant of participating in money laundering crimes. Indicators of the applicant’s involvement in the money laundering offence include other papers with the applicant’s signature, such as emails and documents, in addition to the declarations made under Section 50 of the PMLA.
CASE NAME – Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, Bail Application No. 152 of 2023.